|
In Reply to: Re: Sam posted by my take on all this on September 30, 2003 at 19:31:41:
It is typical of cultists to answer to no one but themselves. Everything they decide about someone's innocence or guilt is based on whatever is between them and God. They inform you of their judgements and your role is to simply live with the consequences. They impose their own morality on others and are full of double standards.
It is also typical of cultists to never admit their mistakes. Sam has never admitted to doing anything wrong by deliberately publishing false information.
It is also typical of cultists to leave no recourse. There are several here who have already stated that they will not write Sam privately because he will not guarantee their anonymity nor privacy.
It is also typical of cultists to break and change their own rules however they want. When it is convenient for Sam he wants things transparent and has a 100% open policy, and will even refuse to keep your emails private. When it is not, he wants you not to discuss anything on the boards. Anything, as long as it pleases Sam.
If you do not know that he writes "from a source which is from his own personal morality" and acts on "some information that is incomplete", "before having all the evidence", all you have to do is read what he writes. He has said what adds up to "I heard this from someone I have decided has lied to me before, but I am publishing it here because it adds up to what I would like to believe."
Berg didn't know a thing about Matt Keeper nor his wife, and proceeded to demolish Matt’s life by outing him and her for all kinds of things that weren't true. In fact he had gotten very little of his damning details right, but he had decided everything depended on his assessments and whatever he said had to be true, because he prayed about it and heard from God. Sure he slipped in token disclaimers here and there, but they were undone with the predominance of his statements of absolute certainty, and his conclusions that they had to be guilty of everything he said. Berg sealed their fate with his certainty, as he acted on his assessments by not supporting and asking members of TF not to support a traumatized and grieving family who really needed help. Her was so certain about everything he went ahead and published his assessment of the situation. Matt is still affected by it today. If you haven't read the commentary on IRFers Beware on this site, you should check it out.
What I question here is, how is what Sam is doing so different? Is he not also deciding who deserves charity and sympathy? Is he not making it so the truth can only be determined by him and him alone? Does he not feel compelled to say whatever he does because of his self-decided mission? Has he not said his fight against TF is religiously motivated? Just like Berg, does Sam not show more consideration to the criminal than the victim, by sending TF emails giving them a chance to refute his information, whereas for victims he just decides they are guilty and what's best for them without even talking to them?
It is also typical of cultists to cry "conspiracy" and "victim." Some anonymous individual wrote stuff here, which was manipulated to seem like there was dirt on Sam, but it didn't hold up. Sam's responses were even scarier than the accusations made out of vague insinuations. Nobody here needs to drag out any dirt on Sam. Sam throws enough dirt on himself simply through his responses on the boards. No doubt Sam has his enemies in and out of TF. On the other hand, he is alienating exers from all generations who were his allies, with his blatant disregard for minimal basic ethical standards.
This site has maintained high standards for discussions on its boards. There is little room for individuals trying to "stir up animosity and confusion amongst exers" unless they don't want to be confused with the facts. Anything that has been said of Sam is usually directly related to facts about his behaviour. What is happening here is Sam has flaws in his methods, which are being discussed. Nobody has exploited his weaknesses or they would go for really personal things about him. His actions are being discussed, not his past, not his person. Sam has backed himself into a corner and shot his own feet. He has ensured through his policies that there is no incentive for communicating with him openly.
For what it is worth, I appreciate much of what he has done too. It may be his choice to do all the right or wrong in the world, but there are consequences for illegal, unethical or immoral acts. He could end up in jail or really destroying people. All we are trying to do is put a stop to it. This criticism is healthy.
